Hey Bart,

I actually was discussing it with my girlfriend (whole new story there, let me tell you...),
here's some thoughts I've had:

I dunno if a "deal" was made between Bush and Bin Laden after 9/11, don't know if
one was made BEFORE 9/11, either.  I don't discount either possibility.

Why have they not attacked us?  The reason is: control.

Bin Laden, before 9/11, was an extremist with a few loony followers.  Your typical Arab was
more centrist, pro-USA.  We gave them money for their oil, and we export Western decadence
like TV and bluejeans.  Your "typical Arab in the street" would not take up arms against America
because they were typically peace-loving "don't fuck with me, and I won't fuck with you" people.
Much like America, pre-9/11.  Most Americans would have been aghast at the notion of striking
Iraq first, say, back when Clinton was President.

With 9/11, Bin Laden took a calculated risk of pissing off moderate Moslems, calculating that we
would strike back, and strike back hard.  We did.  This is what he wanted.

As we went to Afghanistan, and now Iraq, killing Arabs willy-nilly, we now look like barbarians to
your typical Muslim on the street.  Every picture of a dead baby on Al-Jazerra, every story of a
glowstick up a Moslem ass, administered by a US soldier, is a far more effective tool to winning
over Muslims to Bin Laden's side than any attack he could perform here.

In fact, a second attack would be counter-productive to Bin Laden's efforts to winning over Muslims
to his side.  Further attacks on civilians here would be considered barbaric, and would turn off his
fellow Muslims.  Instead, he's letting US be the barbarians, causing his more peacenicky fellow
Muslims to align themselves with him.

Here, a similar tactic is in play.  Nobody would have dreamed of attacking Iraq pre-emptively, pre-9/11.
A Pearl Harbor-like attack was what it took to get your average "Friends-"watching, don't-fuck-with-me
-and-I-won't-fuck-with-you American to care enough about the other side of the world to want to send
thier kids over and kill people.

A second attack here would cause people to doubt Bush's ability to protect "the Homeland."
That was before the election, that is.

Damn, I've prattled on.  I know you don't like long letters.
Truth is, Bart, yeah, I think they're working together, they need each other.
Both sides need a Bogeyman to keep their own people following them like sheep.
That's who the war is really upon, the people following their leaders.

I have to admit, I was very much influenced by this article when writing you:

http://www.dkosopedia.com/index.php/Anatomy_of_Terrorism

but your rant about Bush and the deal made me think
about it.

I think we should impeach him for violating his oath
to protect and uphold the Constitution, as Jose
Padilla has been locked up without a trial for 2/12
years now, and he's guaranteed a fair and speedy trial
by that pesky Constitution.  I do not see Bush
upholding or protecting it in this instance.

Keep swinging the mighty hammer, please check out that
link, it's a good one!

T

PS: The ladyfriend REALLY liked Chinaco!  Thanks for
turning me on to it!

 Back to  bartcop.com